Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1359 (PAT)

Shyam Jee Paswan v. State of Bihar

2013-12-02

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 304-B, IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years and under Section 201/34, IPC and sentenced to RI for three years as also under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further imprisonment for one year by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gaya in S. Tr. No. 451/1991/7/1999 by judgment and order dated 26.6.1999. 2. The case of the informant, Ram Awtar Paswan is that he had married his daughter to the appellant in the year 1987. After one year duragaman was held where after she started residing in the matrimonial home with her mother-in-law. She was not allowed to go to her naihar and accused persons used to demand dowry and the deceased was tortured for non-fulfillment of demands of dowry and finally on 25.6.1990 he learnt that his daughter had been done to death. The informant was informed on the next day. He then instituted the present case. 3. During trial the prosecution examined five witnesses PW 1, Bhagly Paswan is the uncle of the informant who stated that the daughter of the informant had married and that dowry had been given during the marriage. He also stated with regard to demands of dowry and the death of the deceased. However, in cross-examination his attention was drawn to the earlier statement to the effect that he had not stated with regard to demands of dowry in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr PC. It was suggested to him that in fact the deceased had died on account of illness. 4. PW 2, Ram Khelawan Paswan is the cousin of the informant who also repeated the version of PW 1. However, in his cross-examination he stated that after the marriage when the deceased had come to her naihar he found her happy. His attention was also drawn to the factum of demands of dowry having not been stated in his earlier statement recorded under Section 161, Cr PC. A suggestion was given to him as well that the deceased had died on account of illness and he had participated in the funeral rites of the deceased. 5. PW 3, Gauri Devi is the mother of the deceased who stated in her cross-examination that nobody had made demands of dowry from her. A suggestion was given to him as well that the deceased had died on account of illness and he had participated in the funeral rites of the deceased. 5. PW 3, Gauri Devi is the mother of the deceased who stated in her cross-examination that nobody had made demands of dowry from her. She stated that her daughter at no point of time complained with regard to ill-treatment on account of non-fulfillment of dowry. 6. PW 4, Nanhku Pas wan is the uncle of the deceased who has stated with regard to factum of marriage, exchange of gifts and demand of dowry. In his cross-examination his attention was drawn to the earlier statement with regard to demands of dowry. 7. PW 5 is the informant, Ram Awtar Paswan who has repeated his version of the First Information Report. 8. The Defence also examined three witnesses out of whom DW 1, Shiv Yadav who was a person living within jail premises as the Accused and stated that the deceased was pregnant and had certain complications on account of which she had been taken to the Doctor and when she was being removed to a specialized hospital she died on the way. 9. DW 2, Ram Chandra Paswan is also on the same point. DW 3, Dr. Uday Shanker Mishra is the Doctor who examined the deceased on the request of the mother-in-law of the deceased. She stated that deceased was pregnant and on account of complication she was removed to the specialized hospital. She proved his prescription Exhibit A. 10. The submission is that in the facts of the case when there is a full explanation as to how the deceased died the onus has been well discharged by the accused persons and in absence of any objective evidence with regard to murder/unnatural death of the deceased it would be unsafe to rely upon the prosecution case. 11. Having gone through the evidence on record. I find no reason to disbelieve the defence witnesses who appear to be completely reliable. In absence of any cogent material with regard to demands of dowry and torture for non-fulfillment of the same as also the cause of death it would be against the interest of justice to maintain conviction of the appellant. 12. I find no reason to disbelieve the defence witnesses who appear to be completely reliable. In absence of any cogent material with regard to demands of dowry and torture for non-fulfillment of the same as also the cause of death it would be against the interest of justice to maintain conviction of the appellant. 12. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 26.6.1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gaya in S. Tr. No. 451/1991/7/1999 is set aside. The appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.